Trump "Hater"? Yes... I guess so

This is reproduced from a post on Facebook. It's full of so many fallacies and so much misinformation, I felt like I needed to rebut this point by point. It's too much for Facebook, so I'm adding this just so my comments are on the record.

Note that I've reproduced the original post verbatim. "ME" is not me, Jim, but the original poster. The original post is in red... all my comments are in blue (symbolism). Here's how it started.

Literally every conversation I've had with a Trump hater about the upcoming election:

JIM: It's off to a good start, isn't it. Nothing to frame a debate like labeling your opponent with a highly charged invective -- "hater"? Can't I just disagree? This is the first sign that this original post is dishonest discourse.

Hater: I can't wait to get Donald Trump out of office.

Me: Why?

Hater: Why?!?! Don't tell me you don't think he colluded with Russia!

Me: According to Robert Mueller's exhaustive, multi-million dollar investigation, there was no evidence of that. But there was evidence that the Obama administration spied on him and his campaign using the FBI.

 JIM: Robert Mueller's exhaustive investigation, which clearly, you didn't bother to read. The reality is, the Mueller Report spends almost 200 pages documenting evidence of links between the Russian Government and the Trump Campaign. The report also states (direct quote)
:

"a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

         In addition, the Mueller Report says that (again direct quote):    

"...a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations."

 The report goes on to say that this was directed against the Clinton campaign and this "service" was responsible for releasing stolen Clinton campaign documents. Also, Mueller found FOUR actions that satisfied the legal definition of obstruction, but he was limited by the Justice Department from filing charges against a sitting president.

Hater: Well, he said he'd repeal and replace Obamacare. What happened to that? Me: Well, he removed the tax penalty which removes the mandate. Congress now just has to move with it's replacement. He can't do it by Executive Order. You do know Obama had very little to do with the writing of the ACA, right?

JIM: Fact is, no one really wanted to repeal Obamacare -- only 26% of American's opposed the ACA in 2016. The constant repetition of the opposition mantra has replaced the reality. I do not feel like the ACA is not faulty, but note that it was a highly compromised legislation after Republicans and a few scared democrats hobbled it.

Hater: Well, he said he'd build a wall and Mexico was gonna pay for it. Haha. What happened to that?

Me: They've built over 260 miles of new wall so far and he's renegotiated NAFTA costing Mexico billions of dollars that were given to them by Bill Clinton through the returning of jobs in America.

JIM: Also a fallacious argument. First off, only about 40% of Americans favor building a wall, and even many original supporters have abandoned the idea after discovering how expensive, difficult and disruptive a wall would be. And it was an absurd statement that Mexico would pay, though they may soon want to build a wall to keep Americans out of Mexico.

Hater: Well, that's not them paying for it!

Me: BILLIONS. Did you think he literally meant Mexico was gonna write a check with "Wall" in the memo?

JIM: You know, he very LITERALLY stated this many times. He began to walk back his threats once he realized that his concept was flawed.

Hater: Well, he's buddy buddy with Putin and Kim Jung Un. Me: Getting along with your adversaries is not a bad thing. Or would you prefer he antagonize them? BTW, when was the last "test missile" North Korea sent Japan's way?

JIM: Really? He has constantly betrayed America's European allies, while giving comfort to those who would rejoice in our failure. He sidles up to these dictators because he envies their power over their populations.

Hater: Well, he doesn't like the military! He called the dead soldiers "losers!"

Me: You're referring to a report made from "anonymous sources" when over nine people who were with the President that have gone on record saying that it wasn't true? That doesn't send up any red flags for you? He's brought our Vets home and taken great strides, and put a lot of money into fixing the VA, ask any veteran you know. Funny way to treat people you think are "losers," don't you think?

 JIM: No so anonymous. He said ON TAPE about John McCain:

 

"He (John McCain) is not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured."

Not at all hypocritical (sarcasm) because Trump, himself, wasn't captured and tortured. Oh yeah -- because he dodged the draft. I'd bet that at the time many of his contemporaries were slogging through Vietnam that he thought of them as losers.

And, following his pattern of accepting credit for anything and everything, he's claiming origination the the Veterans Choice Program of 2014, clearly, not on his watch. What he IS responsible for is the Mission Act which effectively tries to dismantle the VA system. Ask any vet what they think of this counter-veteran attempt to privatize medical care for Veterans.

Hater: Well, he got impeached for God's sake! Me: Yes, impeached by a partisan House and subsequently acquitted as there was no evidence that the President did anything wrong (no quid pro quo) in his communication with the President of Ukraine. BTW, you know Joe Biden actually admitted on national television to doing that exact thing while he was in office as VP though, right?

JIM: And there was nothing at all partisan about the Senate acquittal? The Trump Whitehouse has taken so many questionable actions, that impeaching for simply the "Quid Pro Quo" incident, is like trying to establish Al Capone's criminal record by accusing him of stealing a plastic fork from McDonald's.

Hater: Well he handled COVID horribly!

Me: What would've you done differently?

JIM: A leader warns the population of the crisis, then attempts to get them on board with supporting potentially unpopular actions that will prevent further damage from the threat. Trump did none of this -- instead, attempted to fight the public health crisis by denying its existence. Take a minute and watch this: "How Trump Lost Control of the Pandemic". No one BLAMES Trump for the virus, but many, like myself, think it could have been moderated if the administration had hung with science over politics.

Hater: He didn't close the borders in time. Me: He announce travel restrictions on 1/31 and was called xenophobic for doing so, all the while Nancy Pelosi and Bill Deblasio were walking in Chinatown telling everyone to come on down, the water is fine.

JIM: He is so consistently xenophobic that this was a natural assumption. Also, by that time, the novel coronavirus had spread so widely that limiting travel from China (that's all his January proclamation affects) was throwing a meatball at a monster.

Hater: Well, he refused to wear a mask.

Me: Here's a picture of him wearing a mask.

JIM: This just has a totally hollow ring to it. We have all seen MANY more instances of Trump, his family, his followers, and associates, not only NOT WEARING masks, but ridiculing those who were adamant about masks. Masks don't protect us, the wearer, so much as the people who interact with us. So don't give me that -- "here's a picture" -- I don't even have the time to collect all the images (video and still) of Trump unmasked. His blatant disregard is fully supported by the recently erupted outbreak among those who have been in close quarters this last week.

Hater: Well, that was too far after! Me: After what? He had two of his experts on national TV every day giving updates and telling everyone to wear a mask?

JIM: His public flaming of Dr. Fauci (thank goodness for this man), and director of CDC (one of his appointees, at that) belies this. Trump, himself, should have gone on TV asking EVERYONE to help shorten the pandemic by wearing masks, and the other suggested actions of the medical community. Not doing this makes him a failure as a leader.

Hater: Well, he said everything will be fine and this will end! Me: Did you want him to run around screaming that the sky was falling?

JIM: No... but if you look at how EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT has handled a national crisis, you might get an idea of how we should expect a leader to behave. Leading is warning, assuring, advising. He just treated it as a political football -- and he fumbled!

Hater: Well, listen to the way he talks! He's nasty! He's not how I want my President to sound.

Me: Ahhh. NOW we're getting somewhere. You don't like his personality. And everything you've mentioned up until now is because you don't like his personality.

JIM: You're right -- I don't like him. I don't believe we should expect a President to adhere to our individual standards. However, these traits are baseline: 1) Honesty; 2) Intelligence; 3) Respect for all (supporters and opponents); 4) Knowledge of and support of our Constitution; 5) Fairness. If you think Trump embodies these traits, then you've definitely not been paying attention. I don't think issuing policy by Twitter is appropriate. Let's regain some decorum. I, and many other Americans, are really tired of the Politics of Disruption. We have more in COMMON as Americans than those who profit from the division would like us to believe.

So for you it seems personal and not about the job he's done.

So listen, if you want a President who will tell you whatever you want to hear, flip- flopping on every issue, not getting anything done his entire time while in office, but who sounds like a nice guy (even though he seems seriously impaired), then Joe Biden is definitely your man.

So, you end, like you began with a bunch of unsupported mud slinging. I don't want a President who says what I want to hear -- for example, I really would like to hear that the pandemic is over... that there is no more threat of nuclear war... that racial injustice is a thing of the past... that my children, and EVERYONE's children, can enjoy the liberties that I have. Also, do you not realize that Obama was blocked at every step by an self-confessed, obstructionist congress. At this point, I would vote for anyone that could bring a bit of civility back to government.

Feel free to comment, though I will not accept comments that are simply flames. No name calling.